Archive for the ‘Global Revolution’ Category

After witnessing the fall of the Berlin Wall, and indeed, the collapse of the entire border frontier between East and West firsthand near the end of my military service, I thought those days marked the final death-knell of communism around the world. In more than two decades since those days of hope, as it seemed the globe might begin to abandon the plots and schemes of the central planners, what I witnessed is that rather than take the hard-learned lessons forward with us from then until now, we’ve forgotten them. Discredited and defeated, communism should have been dead, but it’s not gone away after all. In the last several years, it has made a resurgence, as the generational memories of the terror it brought upon the globe fade, and younger generations fall prey to the song of the socialist sirens. With communism and its more socially acceptable forms, “socialism” and “progressivism” making a comeback, it should be a surprise to read that the French Prime Minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, announces in spittle-laden bellicosity that the rich fleeing France for Belgium to escape the high taxes should be considered less than patriotic. Reading the translation of his remarks, one can only wonder how long it will be before France, like the Soviet Union before it, erects walls to prevent its most successful people, or even people seeking simple freedom from leaving.

When one reads of remarks like this, when armed with even a modicum of historical understanding, one must recognize the frightening threat of a return to the darkest days our world has yet known. How far from Prime Minister Ayrault’s thinking are the gulags and concentration camps? Certainly, he’s not proposed such a thing…yet. Still, in the manner of his speaking, one can see the manifestation of the same old demons being raised up, under the same old guise, and with the same ugly motive. Perhaps worst of all, in castigating those wealthy people leaving France, among them notably the famed French actor Gerard Dépardieu, Ayrault’s accusation is that the wealthy who flee are suffering from a lack of generosity. This is quite obviously a sick attempt at reversing the guilt onto the innocent, but it’s no surprise from a government now headed by President Francois Hollande, who declared infamously that he didn’t “like the rich.” The reeking pomposity of socialist dictators-in-waiting has never known more hypocrisy.

In our own country, Barack Obama is continuing that same trend, and the long-time leftist slogan “Eat the Rich” seems near to being implemented in full. At the rate things are progressing toward a complete worker’s paradise here in the United States, it’s only a matter of time before he decides we need a border fence after all, not to keep illegals out, but to make sure that none may leave. As the Europeans continue to build their coming continental concentration camp, from which only the powerful like Hollande and Ayrault will be afforded the chance to flee, Obama is building another right here, and he’s feeding the lap-dog press the same deceptive and hypocritical banter about the rich, as his family enjoys a multi-million dollar holiday in the state of his [alleged] birth. (Like most Marxists, I suspect he was actually hatched.)

How long will it be before we see the return of the barbed wire and fortifications, complete with machine gun nests, not to defend a country, but to keep its enslaved people from leaving? With the spreading, grotesque mindset of communism once again spreading like black mold on a too-long neglected basement wall, it seems history is poised to once again repeat itself, because while a people may learn a given lesson by living it, they do a poor job of conveying those lessons to their children. Worse, they pay for their children to be indoctrinated by the very mindset they overcame, and more is the pity and travesty that the education establishment will have served not as the instrument of our protection, but the weapon by which the communist sappers undermined our cultural and intellectual fortifications.

You might have come to think it is an exaggeration to suggest that those now in power in France could build a wall, but one ought to consider the words of some of their politicians, as quote in the Telegraph:

“Socialist MP Yann Galut called for the actor to be “stripped of his nationality” if he failed to pay his dues in his mother country, saying the law should be changed to enable such a punishment.”

The idea that a politician is seeking to punish people in this way is not a novelty, but it isn’t lost on most conservatives that the underlying meaning is purely tyrannical. Meanwhile, another government official had this to say:

“Benoît Hamon, the consumption minister, said the move amounted to giving France “the finger” and was “anti-patriotic”.”

Setting aside the fact of this man’s preposterous title, one must wonder at the sheer idiocy of a country that revels in revolution but cannot rise even to defend its own borders. Being partly of French heritage, I can’t but imagine that my ancestors who came to North America sought the freedoms their countrymen now forsake, and I am mightily grateful that they saw fit to do so, but I am simultaneously disgusted at the fact that so many of their descendants now seem willing to forsake liberty here. Communism isn’t dead after all, but tempting us to believe it permitted them to make inroads, and I don’t know if they can be stopped.

With darkness and depression enveloping the globe, it is time to remember the wall between East and West, because we may yet see its resurrection on a global scale. It’s also time to reconsider whether we should have let so much of the wall be destroyed. Demolishing it meant that the visible scar upon the face of civilization has been removed, and while the wall itself may have gone for a time, the mindset that had built it now thrives around the globe. If we are to dismantle communism again, it must not be its mere instruments that we remove, but its entire philosophical base. It must be placed and kept on ice like a virus stored as a hedge against the need to redevelop new vaccines in case of a new outbreak.

Rightscoop.com picked up on a fascinating call Mark Levin took on his show on Friday evening, and what made the call interesting on its surface was the subject matter, and the identity of the caller, Nicholas from Paris, France, and why he thought the world was in trouble given his country’s swing to the hard left in the recent election. The caller was concerned for the US, and the notion that we are turning into France. While that’s very important, and certainly bears examination, there’s something else in this call that I found revealing. I want you to pay attention to what Mark Levin says in response, and what it portends for our future, here in the US. It’s not that it wasn’t clear, but that the context of the call actually serves to hide the worst, most frightening aspect of what was said in the exchange, and if you’re like me, you heard it too:

Levin responds by re-stating the caller’s root question:

“Your question though is “how do you get out of this?”

He then warns the caller that the answer isn’t pleasant:

“I’m going to tell you and you’re not going to like it.”

“The system will have to collapse before it can be rebuilt.”

Think about the context of this remark. I don’t believe Levin intended it to be taken this way, but everything he tells the caller about France applies to our domestic political situation, including the way we “get out of this.”

I offer this to you because in my few spare moments lately, I’ve been giving some thought to the apparent futility of many of our efforts. We hear from this caller that in his country, there is only the socialist answer for everything, and I wonder how familiar that this has become to us. Whether it’s the leftist front and the Democrat Party, or the Republican establishment with their so-called “compassionate conservatism,” all of the answers are big-government, and all are oriented toward socialistic ideas and ideals.

This may come as a shock to a few, but I have long thought that what Levin here admits is true, and that in logic, this system cannot be sustained indefinitely is clear, but the fact that we will likely go through an excruciating collapse is less clear to many people. The reason is simple, and Levin makes the argument correctly: There are too many people who depend upon this socialist welfare state. There are too many interests invested in continuing as-is, and virtually none interested in stepping back from it. The idea behind “austerity” is to try to get back to a sustainable basis, but as you can see from Europe’s results over the last few weeks, austerity simply won’t hold up over the longer run because people are too consumed with short-run comforts, particularly those obtained without effort through the welfare state.

If you believe that same mindset isn’t prevalent here in the US, you’re mistaken. We are not immune to this thinking, and there is every evidence that we are on the same course, though perhaps a half-step or so behind. This causes me dread, because what I am coming to believe is that until this country collapses, we will never rebuild it, and I am terrified that those who rebuild it will not be of the same character and temperament as those who established this nation in the first place. More, I think we may see horrifying conditions erupt along that path, with violence unlike any we have seen or known since the Civil War, and perhaps much worse. In short, collapse seems inevitable, but what that collapse may bring could be even worse, and there is no guarantee that we will emerge as anything even roughly approximating the nation we had known.

or even This?

It is true to say that Obama and his acolytes will have a hand in driving us over the precipice, and indeed, they already have, but let us be circumspect in our evaluation of our situation: The establishment wing of the GOP has been right there, guiding us in that same direction, albeit somewhat more slowly, but no less indefatigably leftward. Mitt Romney might be our next President, but if so, what of it? He, who established Romneycare in Massachusetts will be no more likely to lead us away from socialism than, for instance, Nikolas Sarkozy in France. In fact, it’s fair to say that Sarkozy is probably a fair analog to the sort of “conservative” leadership Mitt Romney offers, which is to say: It’s not conservative, and it will not change our general direction, or the long-range result. It will serve as merely one more delay or postponement.

It’s not my intention to cause you undue worry, but it is important that we remain somewhat clear-headed in our view of what it is we’re out to accomplish. We may see a complete collapse of our country, and it may get as ugly as ugly gets, but I also believe, like Levin admits here, that it is probably inevitable. What it means to the greater body of the American people is that if you ever wish to return to a free society, you had better start agitating and educating on behalf of such a society now. Historically, few of the societal makeovers through which nations proceed are bloodless, never mind painless. More importantly, however, only one came out as well as our adopted Constitution, but what it has demonstrated is that statism, given any loophole, either in the law, or in the culture, will multiply, magnify, and overpower all the restraints thought to have been place upon it.

Our founders attempted to give us a Constitution that would withstand such turmoil, but in the main, avoid it. It was an imperfect document, but it offered the best shot at a nation built on the basis of individual liberty the world has yet known. It’s restraints upon the aggregation and growth of power in the Federal government were not strong enough, and while they may have been plain in the language of our founders, still the language was not plain enough to prohibit the power hungry from perverting the meaning, not merely of the text, but of the very words that are used throughout. The academics have taken “the people” to mean a collective body, rather than “all individual citizens,” and in this way, we are slowly having our liberties stripped away and delivered to collective notions of “rights,” all to the detriment of individuals.

Ladies and gentlemen, Levin may indeed be right about this, whether he intended it or not, and it’s another warning you should take care to heed. We are in desperate trouble, and much of it arises from the very contradictions that are slowly consuming us. Many Americans claim to be “constitutional conservatives,” but I wonder what commitment there is to that idea in practice. Are you willing to undo all the statism that this characterization should imply? I am, but for my part, I recognize that I am of some tiny minority that would be considered “extreme” both in France, and in the United States, in “polite” political circles. I read the US Constitution plainly, and I am versed in the context and meaning in which our founders wrote it. I neither wear the rose-colored spectacles by which one might imagine into existence rights that cannot exist in logic, nor do I wear the dark masks of those who wish to conceal their grasp for more power.

Our nation cannot survive on its current course. Cannot. Will not. Whether the election in November provides us another four years of the aggressive, lurching tyranny that is Obama, or the more careful, plodding nanny-statism of the Sarkozy-like Romney, the direction is the same, with only the speed along our course varied by the result. The fundamental issue that confronts us in our time is the same as that which confronts the French or the Greeks, and what would be required to see the salvation of our nation is that which people across Europe now seem to refuse: Austerity. Austerity is merely the willingness to tell oneself “no” in the short-run, at pains on behalf of a better long-run, and to date, I have yet to see any evidence that a majority of voters (never mind legislators)anywhere are inclined to such self-imposed discipline. Knowing this, the end of the story may indeed rest in the sentence uttered by Mark Levin:

“The system will have to collapse before it can be rebuilt.”

If it’s true of France, and one could suppose that it is, one might ask whether it isn’t also true of the United States. What will we be, as a nation, and as a people, when we have been reduced to a sort of atavistic tribalism in which volitional production is replaced with legalized looting of one’s neighbors? What will the context of that culture impose on the sort of law and governance that emerges? Do we dare to hope it might in any way resemble the masterpiece of 1792, much less exceed it? My pessimism on the subject may reflect my own recent experiences, but history’s judgment is no less worrisome. If we are to become again a free people, we must change our course entirely. We must identify our malady, and cure it. Instead, what we now seem to do is to pretend it away. Until we learn to say “no” and to mean it, we are merely bringing a birthday cake ablaze in candles and gaiety to a what is instead a terrible funeral, with a dirge as our melody. For those who have mistakenly thought “it could never happen here,” however one might define “it,” the simple truth may be that we’re already well on our way.

On Tuesday evening, Mark Levin posed a question on his radio show that bears serious consideration by we conservatives, and I think it’s time we discuss it. It’s not a matter of winning any longer, but whether we can stave off disaster. What Levin wondered aloud was whether our nation might be saved at all. He asked if it is too late, because there are too few people remaining who will oppose the advance of statism. Are we too few? Is it too late? Is the America we had known doomed? If so, what will we have instead? Our Republic stands on the brink of collapse, and the question we now face is what we can do about it. The signs are all around us: If we don’t turn things around in 2012, it may be that we never will.

Identifying the problem we face is simple, and it’s really what Alexis de Tocqueville proposed when he wrote that if the Democracy In America. Among all of the other important and prescient things he warned, these may have been the two we should have etched in stone on the steps of Congress, and on every class-room door in the country:

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

That helps to describe our predicament, and this punctuates it:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville

Our nation is now just more than 200 years on from the adoption of our current constitution, and it seems that the cause of Tocqueville’s warning is being realized before our eyes. Barack Obama is effectively a dictator, overturning laws by failing to enforce them, and by promulgating regulations that have no legal basis in authority under our Constitution. Our people, a majority of them, live substantially by taking from others, and those who produce their living have been indoctrinated to supine servitude. This isn’t the nation of our founding, and our current president’s enmity to the constitution to which he has sworn an oath demonstrates our dire situation. Many judges no longer see any reason to restrain themselves to the content or context of the laws on the basis of which they’re allegedly ruling, and they reach out to international case law for precedents that conflict with our own constitution. Under these conditions, our Republic cannot survive, much less flourish, and we are headed for darkness.

Part of what my professional life entails is the process of evaluating threats and vulnerabilities, and projecting organization capabilities for confronting them. Applying that technique to our current situation, for individuals who consider themselves conservative, never mind libertarian, I think we’re going to see a revolution of radical statists, and I believe this has been the aim of George Soros and his pack of radical cohorts. Our options are going to be just three, and you had better begin to consider them:

Submit – Accept the country is going to become a radical socialist state complete with a police-state front

Flee – Leave the country in search of friendly shores that will accept you

Fight – Take up arms against i, risking life, limb, and property

These aren’t pleasant options, no matter which we consider, but let’s look at them. To submit would mean to maintain immediate physical safety, but it also means giving up virtually all personal sovereignty. I’m not cut out for this option, because I’m not one who respects claims of arbitrary authority over my life, or the way in which I choose to live it. I’m not one who abides by theft, whether carried out by a hoodlum in a darkened alleyway, or in the open by a federal bureaucrat. I don’t accept the idea that my life, liberty, and property are rightly subject to the aggression of other men, whether alone, or as a mob. This means that for me, I’m not inclined to submit, but every person will be forced to make their own choices. I fear too many will lie down in order to avoid harm, because in point of fact, the last century has been a progression of this sort of incremental surrender.

I don’t wish to surrender my country. I’m not the sort to flee from tyranny, although I must admit that I’ve done so before. I live out in the country precisely because I could not abide the growing tyranny in a municipality that orders its residents to have so many shrubs, so many trees, and what sort of decorations they can place on their own properties. I could not abide it, so I moved a short way out of the city, and in a matter of a decade, that city annexed properties quickly advancing upon me. At that point, I moved my family and my horses to an even more remote locale, and set up the farm where I expect that I will find some peace for the remainder of my days. This won’t be the case, however, if the federal government becomes the sort of coercive police state that leftists desire. There will be no escape to the country, and the only choice will be to flee the country altogether.

As I’ve reported, there have been some people, including filmmaker James Cameron who have fled to New Zealand, but the problem for most of us is that few can afford that move, and countries like New Zealand are smart enough to refuse easy immigration. Where then shall we go? The geographical isolation that has served America as a protection promises to serve now as a prison. Canada? Mexico? These are our choices, and neither looks very promising to most Americans. I can’t imagine that Mexico will offer much promise, and Canada won’t absorb us all. In my view, this sort of flight isn’t feasible for me, or for most Americans, which then brings us along to the option nobody wants to consider.

Fighting a counter-revolution is a deadly affair, particularly when the power of government is in the hands of the revolutionaries. From the outset, they will have command of the entire military, the police, and indeed, the entire array of government institutions, and since the media serves the revolution in most important ways, they’ve already created a willing propaganda arm. They control the horizontal and the vertical, so communications will become an impossibility. How do you wage a war against such a force? How is it possible to win? There is a very good reason that peoples the world over flee from or submit to large scale national social tyrannies: These are easier than fighting. These pose less danger.

What sort of country have ours become that we must even consider the revolutionary tyranny that is now creeping toward us, gathering inertia? I do not wish to seem as though I’m a doomsayer, but the truth is that we’re in very real national distress. Across the vast expanses of this country, there are probably fewer than one in six who I would consider committed patriots who believe we should maintain this republic as framed by our constitution, but still fewer who are willing to fight to preserve it. I doubt we could must five million patriots who would step forward and take up arms in defense of the republic, and make war against the people who have slowly usurped our system of government.

I am not asking or urging anybody to do anything, except think. I’d like you to consider the meaning of all of these things, and what you are willing to do to preserve what we all claim to love so dearly. Is our liberty to be abandoned without a fight? Is our freedom really to be eclipsed in this generation? Why are we going on quietly about our lives? The Tea Party was launched with the intention of creating a push-back, but the Tea Party has been largely silent in the last year. The problem is that without some rallying cry, we’re sliding more quickly toward the national catastrophe that now awaits in the gaping maw of the social welfare police-state. The other problem faced by those who would be inclined to fight if it comes to it is that we don’t have a single bright line for the trigger for a fight. What is that trigger? What is the thing that if the government undertakes, we would immediately respond with war?

This reminds me of the story of Wyatt Earp standing down a mob: “Sure, you’ll get me in a rush, but who wants to be first?” This is a question nobody likes to consider, because nobody wants to be first. Perhaps that will change, and perhaps it’s not yet as bad as that implies, but at some point, we’ll reach that climax at the pace in which we’re now rushing toward tyranny. All I’m suggesting to my fellow Americans is that now is the time to think these things through. What will we do in defense of our constitution when those sworn to uphold it decide instead to set it aside? What will be that condition under which we will no longer abide the transgressions? It’s easy to make brave oaths, today in the shrinking protection our liberties provide, but if our social compact is to be dissolved, it will no longer be a matter of oaths but instead a course of actions that we must consider.

We are under constant attack by Barack Obama’s administration. He is rapidly converting the United States into a vulnerable, weak nation that cannot defend itself against external threats, but polices its own people with an iron fist. Evidence of this thesis comes from all quarters, and conservatives are placing all their hopes in the coming presidential election. The thinking is that if only we can get the right candidate, and if only we can nominate and elect that candidate, once in office, that person will change everything. Ladies and gentlemen, if you believe it will be so simple, you’re sadly mistaken. This isn’t going to be easy, and it’s not going to happen without pain, but if you want to defeat Barack Obama, you will need to learn one word, and make it stick for all times, irrespective of the cost. You must learn to say “no.”

The Obama radicals intend to overturn 230 years of liberty. They now inspect brown-bag lunches brought to school by small children, making sure the meal complies with the Department of Health and Human Services(or Michelle Obama.) There is only one way to defeat such a thing, and parents in the country need to find some ‘intestinal fortitude’ and take ownership over the lives of their children, as should have been the case all along. Say “No.” Don’t send your kids to these schools. Organize sick-outs. Organize whatever is needed. All you need to do to stop this is to refuse to comply with it. Refuse.

Obamacare can be defeated in exactly the same way. Refuse. Refuse to buy insurance. Refuse to pay their fines. Refuse. The only word you need is “no,” but saying it, and sticking to it is the harder part of the chore. Everything the leftists do requires your participation and consent. Don’t give it. Don’t participate. Then their only option is to round you all up, jail you, or kill you if you decline. Let me ask you bluntly: Do you favor life as a slave? That is the only option remaining if you accept their assault on your life. I’m not suggesting you do this all tomorrow, but you should begin to prepare to do it when the government finally, inevitably arrives at that line in the sand across which you will not step.

It’s time you begin to turn this around on the leftists. Call them what they are: Torturers and rapists and murderers. All they have is naked force, and they’re not as frightened of using it as you are of refusing to comply. When people of faith are told that they must fund contraception that violates their conscience, it’s time to admit that you have nothing but a shell to lose, but with Obamacare, even that will be theoretical. Your wallet is not yours. Your home is not yours. Your life is not yours. One by one, bit by bit, the radical left is taking over. They are preparing to sweep away all constitutional constraints upon their actions. What are you doing to prepare? How will you resist? These are questions that you must confront.

Here’s the dirty secret none of them wish you to know, and it’s important to your frame of mind with respect to their attack on your values, your rights, and your lives. What the left hides from you is that in order for them to have power, you must submit. This is not the same submission to the laws you know and respect, that merely require you not do a wrong to others. This is a submission to aggressive laws that demand performance of some sort by you. This is the secret. Their attacks on you via the law require you to act. The laws you honor merely require that you not act in ways that cause harm to others. You do not steal, nor do you defraud others, and you certainly don’t murder. Their laws require you to take specific measures, to act on behalf of their policy agendas, either via your wallet, or via your compliance with their demands.

Therefore, this must be your standard in measuring which laws you must continue to obey, and which have only the power over you that you give them. I am not advocating anarchy, but instead a careful examination of laws on the basis that they either do or do not comply with the context the framers of our constitution laid down as the basis for all our laws. Again, I am asking you to think this through because the time will come when you will need to know, and you won’t necessarily have time to think it through later, or deliberate it much. This is your time to prepare, but the preparations mustn’t be nearly those necessary to survive off the grid, but to survive resisting the tyranny that is now unfolding.

Just as in your personal life, where you must draw clear boundaries lest others run over you, in this sense you must also know what it is you will refuse to do when the law makes demands. A number of Catholics and others of faith are now preparing to make such a stand. They have decided on drawing a line, and I want to warn you that some will abandon the line they have drawn, but others will refuse to walk back the boundaries they have laid down. This is the distinction, and it comes down to the principles you hold dear.

The left lives in fear of you discovering your own power. The left lives in dread of waking up in a world where you have learned to say “no” and mean it. That’s it. That’s your power. It is born of knowing what lines you will not cross no matter their threats and their coercion. Once you know this, there is nothing they can do to you that you cannot resist. I do not promise you painless resistance to tyranny, but I am telling you that it can be defeated. Start small to learn how well it works. Learn to make a fuss. Learn to call attention to their aggression. Learn to scream at the top of your lungs without shame “No means NO!” Place them in their proper frame, as murders, as rapists, and as thieves.

I must admit that I don’t quite understand this one yet, because while we entered the fray in Libya on the basis of the Samantha Power argument of a “Responsibility to Protect,” the idea that nations had a duty to protect a people from a tyrannical regime, this same theory doesn’t apparently apply in Syria. Instead, after a meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Hillary Clinton said in a joint press conference with Foreign Minister Ahment Davutoglu that there would be no troops sent to Syria without the consent of the Syrian government. Why is one brutal thug’s regime exempt, while the other was not? While leftist protesters marched under the banner of “no blood for oil” in successive wars initiated by Republican presidents, there’s no similar outrage now that it has become patently obvious that this is the only justification for the differential in policy: Syria has no oil. Libya has plenty. It’s either that, or something more nefarious.

This is another example of the apparent contradictions in Obama’s foreign policy. When the people of Iran were rising up, Obama said nothing, and did nothing. In Syria, we’re getting some words from the State Department, but nothing of substance, and it seems there’s no intention on the part of this administration to have a consistent policy. We surely didn’t wait for Gaddafi’s consent before bombing in Libya. We were trying to bomb him! Meanwhile, Assad is every bit as monstrous as Gaddafi, and perhaps worse, yet there we are wearing kid gloves. This doesn’t make any sense at all unless one begins to account for the differences between the two countries, or leaders.

Is there some reason the Obama administration favors Syria’s Assad? If one applies the principles of the idea called “Responsibility to Protect(R2P,) one must wonder as thousands of civilians in Syria have been murdered in the streets over the last few months. If Gaddafi was a rabid dog who needed to be removed for the safety of his country’s people, why not Assad? Why is he exempt from a similar fate?

Don’t misunderstand: I am not advocating an attack by NATO on Syria, but I find it curious that the same people who less than one year ago could not wait to pound Gaddafi into submission before he was slaughtered at the hands of a mob(as he deserved) are now reluctant about treating Bashar al-Assad in similar fashion. This discontinuity in policy means something, just as the reluctance to criticize Ahmedinejad in Iran meant something, but it’s not yet clear what the meaning is. Cynical folk would point to the Libyan oil, but even if that is a factor, I don’t think it’s the only one. Something else must account for this differential in policy. Could it be that Assad has something else Obama wants? Could it be related to the proximity of Syria to Israel?

Time will tell, but when one sees such distinct and different actions by lefties in similar circumstances, one knows there’s something more to the story. Leftists are simply too stuck in their ideological ruts to act this way without ulterior motives.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to offer you a number of facts to consider and then I’m going to ask you to consider them as a complete set. At present, our military is falling into a disgraceful condition under the maladministration of Barack Obama. In fact, the condition of the country at large is one of unsustainable weakness, but every day, Obama undertakes more bad ideas that hamper or harm our nation. Most assign this to a reckless incompetence, and while I can understand the desire to not think the worse of a US President for his intentions, I am questioning them now as far too many things seem to be aligning disturbing synchronicity. It seems as though something is wrong with this President, and it may be far worse than misguided intentions. His actions as President have severely undermined our defenses, and may make us essentially naked to aggressors. When one observes such a trend, it must be called to the attention of his fellows, because if this is intentional, then the only name for this is not “dereliction” but instead “treason.”

We are now slashing the defense budget to make room in the Federal budget for entitlements, including Obamacare’s implementation, and all those other programs previously in existence. We are now grounding our Air Force’s fighters at a phenomenal rate. We are nearly 20% weaker in this vital area than we had been a short decade ago, and cancellations of projects like the F-35 guarantee this will only become worse.

We have handicapped our naval capacity by insisting they use a certain percentage of bio-fuels in their combat aircraft at an outrageous expense to tax-payers, and an as-yet unknown cost to the defense of the nation. We are nearing the point where we will effectively scrap two entire aircraft carrier battle groups, further limiting our ability to respond to threats around the globe, or protect our own air-space here at home.

We have given most of our critical missile defense secrets to the Russians, allegedly to ease their worries about them, but in truth, what we’ve done is to give them to a potential adversary that has contractual relationships with Iran and other nations with which conflicts may be inevitable. At the same time, Iran continues to threaten us and our allies with missiles against which these systems were designed to act.

Iran now flagrantly sails its fleets not merely through the Suez Canal, but also threatens to shut down shipping through the Straits of Hormuz, and between these two passages, nearly 50% of the world’s oil supply is transported. We do not challenge them there, except to waggle our finger, but it’s worse because their ships now sail openly along the edge of our territorial waters in an intentionally provocative way.

Petroleum and its distillates are soaring in price, even though President Obama has killed off the Keystone XL pipeline that would have brought fuel to our energy-starved nation within a short time. Our current oil production is dipping, but more than this, the taps at the Strategic Petroleum Reserves remain open, as Obama uses this to hold down the price of oil only slightly.

The Iranians are developing nuclear weapons and they already have mid-range missiles on which to deliver them, but more than this, they are developing long range rocketry that will reach to the North American continent. Iran continues to fund terrorists who attack us globally, and yet, when there was an uprising in Iran, Obama did not back it until well after it had been quelled, but he did so only half-heartedly.

Soros is raising an army of rabble that you know as the Occupiers. What these will be are the useful idiots to be led into slaughter when the time comes, and Obama needs an excuse to clamp down. At the same time, Obama’s department of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement(ICE) is being directed to permit illegals to go without arrest whenever possible.

Our financial system has been directly tied to the banking systems of the failing Euro currency, and it’s no secret that if they collapse, as seems likely, we will almost surely accompany them over the precipice and into the abyss. Your purchasing power is being eroded away, and soon you will begin to see a more distinctly inflationary trend that they will not be able to mostly hide from you as has been true over the last few months. Instead, we’re going like gang-busters to worsen our troubles. The government rigs the unemployment statistics, and we’re told “things are improving.”

None of these things are likely to have been unknown to you, because as readers of this site, you’ve seen most of them covered here. You might look at any of these in isolation, and conclude that they are the results of colossal incompetence or even dereliction, but as yet, you may not have noticed the common thread running through them. You might be satisfied with that notion, but for the fact that you know nothing exists in a vacuum, and that you cannot separate the out from the whole if you’re to understand them in context.

What all of these things have in common is that each of them substantially harms America’s economic and physical security. Each and every one of these things also have in common is the fact that they are directed by a single authority, and the person who wields it is none other than Barack Obama.

Barack Obama maintains two separate cabinets, one consisting of his official cabinet secretaries, and the other composed of his shadowy system of czars and advisers. The latter group wins every argument, and it shows in the decisions this president takes.

If not dereliction, could this really be treason? If we didn’t suspect otherwise, I’d think he was getting us ready for a take-down on all fronts. What’s worse is that his chief opponent in November is likely to be the candidate of his preference. Still, one can hardly miss the fact that what all of these things leave in play is the fact that we are being set up, and it is we Americans who stand to lose everything. His sympathies for Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood are telling relations, and the fact that his favorite pen-pal is the radical, Islamist President of Turkey, and what you realize that there’s almost no hope.

Is Barack Obama intentionally leading us to the banquet of the enemies at which we are to be the main course? Consider what might happen if an electromagnetic pulse(EMP) bomb was detonated by Iran over US territory: You will not see television again, perhaps for a generation. Your vehicles will not function. Every electronic device, and indeed the whole electrical grid may be down for years. You will have no oil with which even to do battle to reopen the Straits of Hormuz or the Suez Canal, because we have been bleeding our Strategic Petroleum Reserves into the ground at their behest. No oil? No Navy or Air Force, meaning no response from us. At that point, fuel-less, and with nothing in which to place it if we had it, the country would almost immediately grind to a stop.

Spend a little time to think about everything Barack Obama is doing, and ask yourself if these are the actions of an honest man concerned with his country but inept in application, or instead the mere organizing of a man who is committed to its destruction. The worst-case scenarios are too awful to imagine, but that we must stop him is also clear. If it isn’t treason, it sure looks like it, and if the net effect is the same, it won’t make a difference either way. Does it matter? In this context, is negligence distinguishable from treason? I don’t think so, but we must begin to assess the threats against our country, and if we should survive through election 2012, we must unseat this president, though I do not know now how we can beat him.

It’s ridiculous. This is nothing but another sorry attempt to create civil unrest to the degree that the feds will have an excuse to become involved. This is all being directed from the White House or its surrogates anyway, so there shouldn’t be any surprise. Isn’t Oakland the home turf to one Van Jones? Yes, I think so, and I believe he was the one who told us that those at the bottom needed to rise up so that those at the top could clamp down, or something to that effect. In any case, the Occupiers are rioting in Oakland again, and this time there was tear gas and more than othree hundred arrests. Apparently, the scum burned a flag they stole from City Hall, so automatically, we can identify them as lefties, because only they and the Jihadists really go in for that sort of thing. If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s an occupier.

This collection of mind-numbed dolts who fancy themselves some sort of latter-day French revolutionaries forgot their guillotine, but more than that, with their improvised shields, I think we should be up-front about their intentions. You don’t cobble together shields or armor for a peaceful protest march, so let’s just knock off the pretense. These dim-witted useful idiots still don’t understand that they’re going to be the sacrificial lambs, the patsies, in Obama’s move on freedom. These morons think there is still something to discuss, but what they don’t understand is that most of the country would love to see them get busted up badly, and at this point, there are those in power who would love a good excuse for a crackdown. These brainless drones of the left will be the immediate object of that crackdown.

As they spoil for a fight in what is likely to be Obama’s version of the burning of the Reichstag, these tent-dwelling morons are creating a dangerous situation. I hope the local authorities contend with this before the feds get involved, but as it turns out, the feds may soon have operational control over Oakland PD due to a previous ruling against it. That will be a recipe for full chaos. Perfect.

WND is reporting that Palestinean Authority officials who wished for their identities to be withheld told the online publication that the Obama administration has told the Palestinean Authority to be patient through the elections, and to not make trouble until Obama is re-elected. That would make perfect sense given the Obama administration’s abysmal record in supporting Israel, and its ceaseless devotion to restoring the 1967 borders that would leave Israel indefensible. It’s no secret that this administration has given support to the so-called “Arab Spring” in neighboring Egypt, and continues to down-play the Islamists’ takeover of that nation, while attacks upon Israel continue from all directions. WND’s Aaron Klein quotes the source as saying:

“We were asked by the (U.S.) administration not to make special demands or scandals during the elections,” said the official.

“After elections, the negotiations will be renewed on basis of the Clinton plan and Obama’s speech in Cairo of the 1967 borders,” the official said.

This is not surprising, after Obama took such a strong public relations hit in his press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last year, and I suspect in a second term, the fangs would come out from behind the polite smiles, and the Obama administration will begin to pressure Israel very strongly. This remains one more reason that Barack Obama must be defeated in 2012. Left to carry out his foreign policy agenda, Israel would soon lay in ruins, or be overrun.

Earlier this year, William Kristol over at the Weekly Standard couldn’t wait to mock conservatives who were watching the developments in Egypt’s Tahrir Square with trepidation, knowing how this revolution would ultimately end: In a tyrannical Islamic state not unlike Iran. Kristol drew stunningly wrong-headed conclusions from the erupting “Arab Spring,” and he and his pal Rich Lowry over at the Nation Review enjoyed a good laugh at the expense of concerned conservatives who wondered about the possibilities of a growing Islamic hegemony in the region. The laughter has ceased, and if Kristol was honest, he’d write an essay explaining all the ways in which he had been wrong, and apologize to all of those who he had earlier mocked. Of course, don’t expect that from Kristol, because he’s a true DC insider, and he won’t have bothered to note that in Egypt, the Islamists are now coming to power, precisely as more wary and rational conservatives predicted.

What should have been apparent to Mr. Kristol is that there can be no ‘Arab Spring’ under the control of Islam, and it was clear to most rational observers from the outset that an Islamic Republic of some sort would be the result. Kristol thought otherwise, but like all good establishment writers, he hedged his bets a little when it became apparent things were not going so wonderfully as he had supposed, but that didn’t stop him from making the most absurd statement:

No more. The Arab winter is over. The men and women of the Greater Middle East are no longer satisfied by “a little life.”

This is the sort of delusional hyperbole that characterized much of Kristol’s writing on the subject at the time, and it’s one more instance in which what he wishes to be true leads him to write as though it had been true. Now that Islamist groups are winning the elections, and will clearly come to dominate the government of Egypt, and as protests again turn violent, one might reasonably ask what Mr. Kristol now says about all of this, having earlier declared the “Arab Spring” in full bloom. The answer: He hasn’t offered anything more on a subject that has turned into a rough spot given his early judgments on the matter.

Meanwhile, on the ground in Egypt, the facts are making a strong case in the form of violence that Mr. Kristol’s hopeful wishes for the future have been superseded by the evidence of the “false spring” with which he covered his bases. This situation remains fluid, but the outcome seems less in doubt as the Islamist factions are clearly sweeping aside any pro-Democracy factions in the elections. What this will likely mean is that before all is said and done, we’re going to be faced with an increasingly radicalized Arab world, with terrible consequences for Israel, and indeed, the entire region. This is one of the reasons Kristol’s wishful thinking was irresponsible and dangerous: Too many took to heart a false sense of security about the state of things in the region, and too many came to believe there was nothing about which Americans should worry. As is now clear, that’s an unmistakable falsehood, and as it stands, we’re likely to see a growing movement in Egypt that will be more openly hostile to Israel, and more apt to discard its treaty commitments. What Bill Kristol’s shameful mocking of conservative doubters of the “Arab Spring” had accomplished was to cause Americans to avert their eyes from the danger, but we won’t be able to remain willfully blind to it much longer. The question thus becomes: When will Kristol finally open his?

Before you discard what I’m telling you as the mere rantings of another conspiracy kook, I’d like you to consider with me what are the facts of President Obama’s speech in Osawatomie, KS, on Tuesday. Apart from the opening gaffe that I’ve already covered, I’d like to talk to you about the dishonest and irrational pronouncements of this president, and the virtual repeat of history’s worst calamities this man is intent upon recreating. When I examine his words, and I think about their meaning, it becomes clear where this president is leading us. If you think the worst regimes of the 20th Century were monstrous, what this man has in store for the American people will shock you when you consider what he’s really advocating. Most people will hear the applause lines and think this had been just one more political speech, but this speech had been the confessions of a tyrant. I’d ask you to bear with me as I help you to see the plain truth of it, if you haven’t noticed it already.

The first thing this professional demagogue said was intended to establish his legitimacy via his maternal grandparents. He spoke about their lives, and the work they did, and he sugar-coated their beliefs. He used his grandparents as a device of nationalistic appeal to his countrymen:

“My grandparents served during World War II. He was a soldier in Patton’s Army; she was a worker on a bomber assembly line. And together, they shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the Great Depression and over fascism. They believed in an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried — no matter who you were, no matter where you came from, no matter how you started out.”

Germany wasn’t fascist in strict definition. Germany was a state dominated by national socialism. This is the root of the term “nazi.” The original word that is its root is the German Nationalsozialismus. With this in mind, it was then surprising to some to hear President Obama say the following:

And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism. “Our country,” he said, “…means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy…of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.”

You can put a lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. The President here is selling the notion of a “New Nationalism” that he defines as Teddy Roosevelt did. Roosevelt’s nationalism had a distinctively socialist flavor, as does the President’s. For those unfamiliar, or who have been misled by generations of revised history, let’s clear something up: The Nazis were never right-wingers. The notion of right-wing as we know it in this country is entirely unlike that which is known to Europeans. In our terminology, right-wingers are conservatives, and libertarians. In Europe, the right wing is merely a nationalistic slant on the same old socialism. Obama understands this, and this is why he references Teddy Roosevelt, a man thought kindly by many Americans for his purported streak of independence, but more importantly, for his charge up San Juan Hill. The truth of the matter may be disconcerting to some Americans, but Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, little different from Wilson, or any of the others, varying only slightly as the Europeans of the day who were either internationalists(Wilson) or more nationalist(Teddy Roosevelt.) They were all monstrous leftists.

The cat Mr. Obama here lets out of the bag is that he’s about most of the same things. He says here that he is in favor of redistribution of wealth in the name of social justice, much like Teddy Roosevelt had been, but also like another monster, in Central Europe arising from the ashes of a post-World War I Germany. In order to downplay fears, Obama offered:

Now, for this, Roosevelt was called a radical. He was called a socialist — (laughter) — even a communist. But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign: an eight-hour work day and a minimum wage for women — insurance for the unemployed and for the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax.

I wouldn’t laugh too hard. Roosevelt had become a radical, and he was a socialist, and to an extent, even a communist. Let’s be clear about another thing, while we consider all of this: The only difference between Hitler’s Nazi Party and Stalin’s Soviets is that the two were rival gangs within the same broad philosophical and political range. There’s no difference, in fact, between their theories, because what they all really are falls neatly into a simpler term, popularized by Ayn Rand, and reintroduced to Americans who had forgotten it, or never known it, by radio host Mark Levin in recent years: Statists.

All of European polity, then as now, consists almost entirely of one form of statist thought or another. The particular form is irrelevant, because they’re all equally bad in the end. Statism is best defined as the theory of politics that demands all people must exist for the purposes of the state, as some form of the expression of the will of the collective, or of God. Theocracy is one form of religious statism, but so is Monarchy(Divine Right, and all of that.) Secular statism includes Communism, Fascism, and Nazism, but also Democracy. The Chinese government has now rebranded themselves as State Capitalists. I’d like you to consider the meaning of that term, because it means simply capitalism as practiced by the state without respect to the notion of individual rights. Strangely, this concept sounds a good deal like the National Socialism Barack Obama now offers, but there is an excellent reason this is the case: They are for all intents and purposes identical.

Both concepts are characterized by a diminution of the rights of individuals, and the aggrandizement of the state. The right of property is in varying degrees eliminated, and ultimately, this always leads to a totalitarian state in order to keep the populace suppressed. What Obama now offers is no different, if you listen closely. The President of the United States has just declared that the idea of Capitalism, and Free Markets, is dead:

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

Not only has Obama told a gigantic lie, but he has rewritten history as well, all in two nifty paragraphs. For ease, let’s examine them in list form:

“The market will take care of everything,” they tell us.

“If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger.

“Sure there will be winners and losers.”

“It doesn’t work.”

“It has never worked.”

“I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.”

I don’t know of an economist, anywhere, who has ever suggested the free “market would take care of everything.” This is either a bold-faced lie, or a statement of Obama’s grotesque misunderstanding of capitalism. To operate, a free market requires the existence of a government to enforce individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property, and to punish those (and only those) who violate those rights. The market also won’t take care of you, the individual. That’s your job. The market and free-market economists have never made promises to take care of individuals. Instead, they have said individuals should take care of themselves, and within that framework, the market will allocate resources accordingly.

The idea is not merely to cut taxes and regulation, but the spending that demands ever more of it. For all the huffing an puffing that emanates from Washington, we’ve seldom seen actual reductions in spending, and certainly, never enough to make a long-lasting systemic improvement. I would like for this lying, pathologically dishonest president to tell us in which years the total number of regulations in the United States ever saw a net decrease. Please, name that year. Even under Ronald Reagan, that was never true, although her certainly did curtail the rate of growth a bit. Still, I have yet to see any administration leave office with a smaller body of regulations in force than had been upon its inauguration. He’s lying.

There will always be winners and losers. That’s life, and that’s nature. What the president doesn’t want you to realize is how big a role government now has in choosing who those will be. Redistribution of wealth, his precious socialism, is nothing but the government choosing who shall win or lose.

Here, he tells us free market capitalism doesn’t work, and never has, and pretends we have tried it. When? Not in my lifetime. Not in his. Not during the life of his parents or grandparents. No, free market capitalism, to the degree it ever existed has never been known in any substantial degree by any American less that 121 years of age. How many of those are around? The simple truth is that since 1890, with the passage of the anti-capitalist, anti-free market Sherman Anti-trust Act, what had been the dawn of full capitalism in America was quickly put on the tracks toward the establishment of a nation of plunder, as per Frederic Bastiat’s description.

President Obama is lying to the American people, and there’s simply no way around that fact. More importantly, since he wouldn’t be the first proven liar to occupy the White House, he’s proposing what can only be considered the most radical sort of regime for America’s future. He proposes full governmental engagement in the redistribution of wealth, and his lengthy speech is designed to give cover to it. Time after time, he ignored the actual historical record in order to present you with lies, mis-characterizations, and thorough revisionism. What Barack Obama herein offers you is the promise of National Socialism, as he has now freely admitted, but also State Capitalism as the Chinese propagandists now call their system. What you need to know is that when Barack Obama tells you about his intentions, he’s telling you about the “dreams from [his] father,” an avowed communist. You can put lipstick on them, eye shadow, and false eyelashes too, but his plan is the same old National Socialist pig, and so is our president.

His presidency is now itself a national emergency, and escorting him firmly out through the White House gates in January 2013 must be our response, having inaugurated his replacement. There is nothing that can mitigate in favor of keeping a man in that high office who wishes to undo the whole of western civilization in the name of a failed theory that has accounted for the slaughter of tens or hundreds of millions of people. Obama must go.

The left wing media is doing its level best to portray the Occupy Wall Street movement as being the younger version of the Tea Party. Their assertion rests on the notion that the OWS folk are “really all about the same things.” This is a lie. The two groups have nothing in common; not in tactics, conduct, mindset or intentions. The truth is revealed by the fact that the Democrat Party couldn’t wait to denounce the Tea Party, but they can’t wait to embrace the Occupiers. Had even a handful of Tea Party folks behaved in a manner akin to what we’ve seen from the Occupiers, the media would have spent even more time defaming them. Remember the lies: “The Tea Party is a bunch of angry, old white people motivated by racism who hate the government.” These had been the basic talking points in media. Oddly, there is no media caricature of the Occupiers, although one has developed among Americans without media assistance: “Occupy Wall Street is a bunch of anti-capitalist ne’er-do-wells, revolutionaries, and they are dominated by antisemitic and leftist thugs.” The American people see the difference even if the media deny it.

The Tea Party arose out of a frustration with runaway government spending under the one-party domination of the Democrats, who in 2009 found themselves in control of all branches of government. The Tea Party consists of people from all walks of life who are indeed a bit more mature on average than the Occupiers. It shows in their conduct as well as in their stated goals. Their intention has been to elect people who will respect the constitution and its limitations on government. Their rallies have been entirely peaceful, and police have never had to arrest them. They filed for and received permits, they observed local ordinances, and they otherwise conducted themselves in a manner aimed at avoiding becoming an inconvenience to the communities in which they were protesting. When their events completed, they picked up the grounds, and they left every venue cleaner than they found it. Their organizers generally had made accommodations for sanitary purposes available, and there was no trail of filth left in their wake. When their protests and rallies were concluded, they went peacefully back to their lives as Americans. While many of them have serious disagreements with the cronyism in Washington DC that spreads its tentacles into the private sector, they nevertheless believe in the American Republic as established, and the great boon to humanity that is capitalism. They have been self-funded, self-organized, and self-directed. Let’s be clear: The Tea Party is a real political organization, if a bit diffuse, but nevertheless aimed at actual political change, and they’ve had some substantial success.

Contrast this with the Occupiers who are younger on average, have no electoral goals to speak of, and instead seem to be vague in their ideas about what it is they are after. There is a mix of ideologies present, but the main body is decidedly leftist, and decidedly anti-capitalist. The only part of the constitution they seem to value is the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and peaceful assembly, while they test the legal limits of those rights at every turn. They seem not to have noticed that somebody is funding their activities, and that those food deliveries are coming from somewhere. They seem not to realize that they’re being directed and organized by people who aren’t present, and never will be. In their encampments, there have been rapes, beatings, stabbings, shootings, widespread drug use, every possible form of public lewdness, and a general disrespect for law, private property, and the communities in which they have taken up their occupations.

Their ideology is so vague on its surface that all you can discern is that they’re unhappy about something, and it seems to arise from a sort of general hatred of big businesses, banks, and their executives, but they can’t tell you anything about which they’re upset in concrete terms. Instead, they whine about millionaires and billionaires while some people of that precise description send them lunch. They don’t have a goal, but their leadership is going to give them one: Anarchy and revolution. The Occupy Wall Street movement has been nothing but a sham and a front for anti-American, anti-Capitalist, anti-freedom Marxists, and these poor dolts, most of them educated since the fall of the Soviet Union, don’t have any clue what that really means. If they have any interest in elections, they haven’t indicated it. I have seen no talk of electing “Occupiers to Congress.” They’re not capable of that.

The glib leftists in the media now tell us: “Well, both groups are anti-establishment.” Really? Which establishment? The Tea Party is against the political establishment in Washington DC, the unofficial institution that has corrupted the US Constitution. They’re against a DC establishment that spends their money like water. They’re against the Republican establishment, that too often dominates that party with its interests. The Occupiers oppose a different establishment: The establishments of private property as expressed in corporations, profits, earnings, and business. In short, the establishment that the Occupiers oppose is the establishment created by the US Constitution. Neither can they redistribute wealth nearly so well as they would like, nor can they steal by law so easily as long as the establishment of the civil society and the rule of law remain in place. The establishment their leadership hopes to undo is the that bulwark of law that our founders erected. The establishment the Tea Party opposes is the corruption of government and capitalism intended to destroy the Constitution.

Following the aims of the Occupiers would lead us to overthrow the US Constitution. Following the goals of the Tea Party would permit us to uphold and defend it and even to restore it. This is no small distinction, and it’s key to the left’s endless propaganda in favor of the Occupiers: They want an end to this country as you have known it, and they are working diligently to bring it about. The Occupiers have almost nothing in common with the Tea Party except in the most superficial sense: They’re both protest movements, and they both oppose some establishment, but the character of their protests and the nature of the establishments against which they rally are very nearly perfectly and diametrically opposed. They couldn’t be more different. After spending the last three years hammering the Tea Party, you might now ask why the media is trying to link the Occupiers to them. The answer is simple: They’ve done their polling research and found that the American people have more positive regard for the Tea Party, but have very rapidly realized the Occupy Wall Street movement is nonsense. They’re also trying to create a false equivalence for another purpose: To make the two interchangeable in the minds of Americans. Thankfully, the vast bulk of the American people are not that stupid, and that notion simply will not sell. The American people have seen the difference. It’s too late to pretend otherwise.

I received an interesting phone call from a friend I hadn’t talked with in a month or so, and it wasn’t that his questions were so surprising as it was that his timing seemed so preposterously coincidental. Another acquaintance had recently forwarded me the article from the American Thinker by John Fricke, Should I buy a gun? This brings me to the subject of my long-time friend’s call. It wasn’t that he wanted a gun, as he has enough firearms to defend his family, but in a related matter, he wanted my opinion on the subject of preparedness, and to examine with him his own list of emergency items. In short, he wanted to compare notes, because like the author of the American Thinker piece, he has begun to wonder if he ought not become a good bit more prepared.

I told him what I tell anybody who asks my opinion: More prepared is better than less prepared, and prepared at all is better than unprepared. That’s a truism, but the point should be clear, and it’s something we’ve discussed together here before: Given the state of the country, Americans should be prepared in to survive for a time without any outside assistance.

Americans should be prepared at a moment’s notice to defend themselves, their families, and their property. They should be prepared to survive without the benefit of a grocery store for weeks, or even months. They should have all the things necessary to “rough it” without electricity for heating or cooling or refrigeration. They should be prepared to administer basic first aid, and have at least the bare minimum of survival items. As I suggested to my friend, list the top 100 things he and his family members use daily, and what would be the low-tech, sustainable substitutes. Radios, flashlights, candles, and all of those things come easily to mind, but less obvious things like soaps, disinfectants, water purification tablets, and other basic necessities are often overlooked. He assured me that he has a generator, but I asked him bluntly: What’s the fuel consumption rate on your generator? How many days worth of fuel do you expect to have on hand? He looked paused and said: “You know, that’s a good point. I can only store so much fuel, and it goes bad sitting in gas cans.”

I explained to him how we too have a small generator, but we also recognize we can’t store enough fuel for any protracted period, so we rotate what we have stored through our vehicles, filling the vehicles from the stored cans of fuel, and refilling them instead of the vehicles. This keeps our survival supply fresh, and it enables us to ensure we’ll have a little fuel for a bad spot. It won’t last long, but at least I’ll brew that coffee every day for a few weeks until that runs out too, and we convert to instant.

One of the things I told my friend, and in his case it’s not so important, is that many people who really don’t routinely hunt, or otherwise use firearms will frequently purchase a gun, and some ammo, put it on a shelf, and never look at it again. Let me suggest to my readers that if you happen to be in that group, or close to it, or you have family members who are, you should take some time to actually learn the safe use and maintenance of your firearms. It’s one thing to be able to shoot it when there is no time pressure and no particular reason but sport, but it is another when you are faced with the situation of defending yourself or your loved ones. It’s best to spend a few boxes of ammunition preparing for self-defense than to discover too late that you haven’t prepared.

Do you have an infant or small children? They have particular nutritional needs that may well not be met by a standard adult ration. You also need to think about other items. Special medications? Do you have pets? Most of us do. What will you do when the dog food runs out? Or will you be dining on Kung Pao Fido every day for a week? My apologies, but there is a point at which we must consider the very real question of what becomes of our pets, and maybe my tasteless remark will be the thing that causes you to consider it. Whatever you can do to prepare for that possibility now will potentially save you and those you love many hardships later.

Most Americans live in tightly packed neighborhoods. Are your neighbors preparing? What of those in your church congregations, or other faith-based or social organizations in your community? If you alone on your block are prepared, and things take a turn for the worse on the national level, how long do you suppose you’ll maintain your preparations if too many of your neighbors are not so well-prepared? Your wit may be the life of the block party on the 4th of July, but when the dark of winter comes, and yours are the only lights lit on the street, and some of your occupation-inclined neighbors become annoyed at your wealth of light, how long do you suppose it will be before somebody decides you need to share your wealth?

Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t wish to frighten anybody, but having served in the Army, and knowing the value of the Boy Scouts’ motto, I want you to consider this all very carefully. I know that many of you will have friends and neighbors like some of mine, who are perpetual grasshoppers to your diligent anthill. I know. Still, encouraging them to consider the reality of our situation is perhaps worthwhile. Tell them to start putting up a few extra cans of food on each shopping trip. The worst thing that can happen is they have a lot extra to give to a canned-food charity drive. In a pinch, it may be the difference between a satisfying if not altogether sublime dining occasion, and the feeling of empty in the pit of their bellies.

Of course, there are those who will never prepare. They simply assume that either they’ll somehow “get theirs” or that nothing bad will ever happen. Watch out for these people. These are the folks who will later come calling with ill intent, and you shouldn’t take for granted that they’ll do you no harm. An empty belly has motivated many people to acts of evil. The best thing about being prepared is the ability to be a good neighbor in hard times. Even if you’ve prepared only enough for you and your own family, by being prepared, you can reduce the burdens you might otherwise place on others. Readers of this blog are the prepared sort anyway, but what my friend’s call and John Fricke’s article should remind us is that we do indeed live in dangerous times. There’s no substitute for preparation, and whether it’s the ability to defend yourselves, or feed yourselves, you should be mindful that the world the statists have created is subject to turmoils from which none of us will be immune.

I’m sure I’m not as prepared as I would like to be, but I’m positive I’m better prepared than many. What about you? Are you ready? Part of our country seems prepared to “go Galt” while the rest continues as though nothing unusual is happening. It’s a sign of the times in which we live that crises of monumental proportions are brewing, and so many Americans remain woefully unprepared.

Brace yourselves: Today is the day the Occupy Wall Street movement intends to shut down New York. They plan to shut down Wall Street, and they plan to shut down the subways. While they claim to be non-violent, yesterday an Occupier was arrested after threatening violence using Molotov cocktails against Macy’s, and saying that they would burn the city down. This man proclaimed: “We’re gonna burn New York City to the [expletive] ground.” The video below actually led to the man’s arrest yesterday evening. This gives some indication of what at least some of the protesters intend, but organizers still insist they are non-violent. This video strongly suggests otherwise:

This isn’t a joke. These misguided people are being used as a base for socialist agitation, and they’re putting up the anarchist front to carry out the violence. New Yorkers should be prepared to seek refuge against violence, and find alternate means of transportation. Also, with all of this chaos, it’s the perfect opportunity for terrorists of another sort to strike. People really should remain vigilant in this environment, because there will be any number of participants who wish to incite a riot, and there will be any number of other elements who will wish to use such riots as cover.

All of this demonstrates clearly why Mayor Michael Bloomberg should be tossed by the electorate. Anybody who has the reins of power in such a vast city, and yet fails to responsibly confront this sort of anarchical movement for most of two months really has no business in that position. Of course, Bloomberg is a billionaire tool, so it’s really not surprising. Let’s just hope that this doesn’t get out of hand, and the violence that some protesters are threatening never materializes.

One must wonder if their intention to block access to subways isn’t an attempt to incite violence. I could easily understand how somebody blocking my path to my timely arrival at my job, particularly in these woeful economic conditions, could easily cause me to lose my composure if somebody were preventing me from access to transportation. There will be those who see this as a threat to their jobs, and thus their families and their financial lives. That’s the intention of the Occupiers with this move, and it’s almost certain to cause serious trouble.

As I said, they claim “non-violence,” but their actions are designed to provoke it. It’s been clear what would happen when these poor fools outlived their usefulness to their masters as a mostly peaceful camp-in. It’s that time. Be careful out there.

I don’t wish to get into the whole notion of so-called “birther” conspiracy theories about the legal eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be President of the United States. It’s no longer relevant, one way or the other, inasmuch as he is now in office, and will remain in office through the end of his term, or even a second one if re-elected. I don’t have documentation in my hands to show anything other than that which he claims, but I really don’t care about that argument. Instead, I contend that Barack Obama is ineligible to be President because his philosophy, his ideals, and his policy directives have demonstrated with clarity his enmity to America. That he is a natural born citizen may very well be true, but the reasoning behind the framers’ inclusion of this simple phrase still apply. If ever there was an instance in which a person might be operating within the letter of the law, while well outside its “spirit,” it must be the presidency of Barack Obama.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The reason for the inclusion of the citizenship requirement was simple enough to understand: It was intended to prevent the election of a President who would respect the laws, loyalties, sympathies, and traditions of a foreign polity that would lending that office to subversion or outright usurpation. That was the basic motive for the inclusion of this specific qualification. I am now here to state with unflinching resolve that whether Obama is eligible within the specific legal requirements makes no factual difference because within the spirit of these requirements, and the motives the founders expressed in setting them forth, Barack Obama has demonstrated a clear contempt for the laws and traditions of the United States and her people, and has further demonstrated loyalties to and sympathies with foreign ideas about law, and traditions outside the founding framework Americans have known and understood since these requirements were laid down. People like to become exercised about the “seriousness of the charges.” These are my allegations, and they couldn’t be more serious. Unlike the others we’ve seen of late, for these charges, there is substantial evidence.

Barack Obama is not fulfilling his oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. Another important section of the constitution sets forth the President’s oath of office, and it is legally binding upon him. The eighth clause of Article II, section 1 states:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Has President Obama been faithfully executing his office? Has he been preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution? I do not believe it is possible to conclude he is carrying into force his mandated role, but instead using the authorities of his office to undermine that which he is sworn to protect, as he issues executive orders instructing the Department of Homeland Security and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to avoid charging and prosecuting some classes of persons who have entered the United States illegally. On its face, this demonstrates loyalties and sympathies to foreigners.

President Obama has instructed regulatory agents of the United States to ignore the rulings of federal judges, in contravention of all legal traditions. The President of the United States is neither a dictator, nor a law unto himself. When he ignores or instructs agents of his administration to ignore the rulings of duly appointed judges and courts, he imperils the rule of law upon which our system depends. What else can be the meaning of ignoring the ruling of a court to cease and desist in enforcement of a ban on offshore drilling?

When the President of the United States offers that he will use every perversion of law, and every available circumvention of the legal process to advance his agenda outside the bounds of the constitution, daring the American people to oppose him, he is challenging the very basic-most order he is sworn to maintain as the critical foundation of our civil society. In operating in this manner, he declares open warfare against the civil society we have maintained despite some rather unscrupulous characters over the long course of our history. Obama abhors the civil society, and his every action drips with the venom of his contempt.

Barack Obama conspires with other foreign influences to disrupt and dispirit the American people, their economy, and the liberties that make the success of either possible. George Soros is not an American, and his statements over time demonstrate his open enmity to the United States. In meeting with Soros, taking his funding, and coordinating policies with Soros’ own “Open Society Institute,” Barack Obama is inviting and even soliciting subversion, while acting himself as a foreign usurper.

Let us not shield our eyes from the truth any longer: Barack Obama is acting in contempt of his oath. His oath was not to the United Nations. It was not to the Muslim Brotherhood. It was not to George Soros or ACORN or any of the other myriad groups he openly serves. His oath was supposed to have been to uphold our constitution, but perhaps it was foreshadowing when Chief Justice John Roberts couldn’t manage to get it right the first time around.

It is in consideration of the character of his execution of office that we discover that Obama is unfit, and by virtue of his aims, intentions, and policies, is morally ineligible to the office of President of the United States. You are free to go on about his legal status and legal eligibility if you like, because for the moment, this is still a free country, but I do not expect that to gain much purchase at the polling places around the country next November. The question isn’t whether he is eligible under law, but whether he had ever been eligible in spirit, or even within the spirit of the requirement as our founders had intended. Whatever his citizenship, Barack Obama is not American inside. It is his foreign polity and his alien sensibilities that make him ineligible to that office, but more, it is his practiced enmity to America that makes his continuance in office a moral absurdity. His loyalties to foreign concepts of governance make of him an heir to Nikita Khrushchev who promised “We will bury you.” His every policy is bent toward that purpose.

That the media conceals this from you, and the wider audience of Americans is no surprise, because many of them are openly treasonous even in times of war. That some among us permit themselves to be led astray about the intentions and designs of this man begins to speak to their moral character. The evidence is manifest. Barack Obama’s every action as president evinces a contempt for the US Constitution and the due processes of law, and civil society thereunder established. We can ill afford to permit him another term, and we should begin to ask, before it is too late, that he be removed from office by Congress with all due dispatch. We ought to demand it.

Not long after writing this, I ran into an audio clip from Mark Levin’s show on Wednesday. It’s from his opening monologue. In many ways, he expresses the same disgust with the current lawless administration:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

The Occupiers have a serious problem, and it’s cropping up nationwide, and even internationally. From reports gathered around the country, the Occupy movement is seeing a wave of sexual assaults among their own numbers, and finally, after being hushed by the organizers, the word is getting out. There is a general sense that the Occupy protest sites are unsafe for women particularly, but in general, for anybody of any description. Combined with the escalating violence we’ve witnessed over the last week or so, isn’t it time we begin to get a handle on all of this? Of course, it’s not getting the mainstream coverage it should, and as BigGovernment.com revealed last week, there’s a good reason: Some of the reporters covering this story are involved in the organization. Cozy? You bet! The problem is that when it comes to the reporting on this allegedly “organic” protest, the media still isn’t telling you who is behind this, or what is going on at the protest sites.

In Baltimore, one woman says she was raped, and she begs for the event to be shut down. The unidentified woman told Fox 45 WBFF that she was raped, and she said that nobody from the protest movement would help her. It’s a sad story, but it’s becoming increasingly common at the Occupy rallies. BigGovernment.com has the video.

On the international front, Occupy Ottawa(Canada) is having similar problems. You can watch a video clip about complaints over sexual assaults at their rally:

Back in New York, at Zuccotti Park, some Occupiers are talking openly about the problem, but they’re trying to shift blame onto police. They claim the police are intentionally ignoring problems of this sort, while directing homeless people to join the Occupiers in Zuccotti Park. I find the claim laughable, because what this woman actually tells us is that the problem is real:

It’s a zoo, and as long as public officials like Mayor Bloomberg continue to turn a blind eye to what is going on, I expect conditions to worsen at these rallies. It’s time to send the Occupiers home, and it’s time for the police to step in and vigorously pursue the people committing serious crimes in the movement. The Occupiers seem willing to shelter the criminals, and they make a good deal of noise about their “security committees,” but all they are really accomplishing by not bringing reports to the police is to aid and abet the felonious among their number. For some of these people, it’s time to Occupy Jail.

In the latest story of the bizarre sense of inflated self-importance of so-called Occupiers, these loons in Oakland have actually voted for a proposal that would seem to instigate a complete shutdown of the city. Of course, I realize this is California, so I suppose it’s possible they could make this happen, but I want to know from these totalitarians: On whose authority? In whose name? By what right do you claim to have the authority to shut down the city of Oakland in order to carry out your protest? They are planning this action for November 2nd. I think it’s clear that these people are prone to violence, prone to dictatorial demands, and clearly a mob of Bolshevik ne’er-do-wells who have designs on overthrowing our nation.

We as fellow occupiers of Oscar Grant Plaza propose that on Wednesday November 2, 2011, we liberate Oakland and shut down the 1%.

We propose a city wide general strike and we propose we invite all students to walk out of school. Instead of workers going to work and students going to school, the people will converge on downtown Oakland to shut down the city.

All banks and corporations should close down for the day or we will march on them.

While we are calling for a general strike, we are also calling for much more. People who organize out of their neighborhoods, schools, community organizations, affinity groups, workplaces and families are encouraged to self organize in a way that allows them to participate in shutting down the city in whatever manner they are comfortable with and capable of.

The whole world is watching Oakland. Let’s show them what is possible.

Bear in mind that they actually voted on this. They actually claim the right to shut down a City of four-hundred thousand people on the basis of a vote among 1607 people, some of who are undoubtedly not residents of Oakland. If you wonder about the legitimacy of their claims to being the “99%,” you’ve just had it answered: They are able to count votes in their pathetic crowd, and yet they are unable to recognize that they are not even 1% of the town in which they’re rallying. This is really disturbing, not because their math skills seem flawed, but because of what it indicates about their mind-set: They are willing to interfere with the lives and livelihoods of 400,000 fellow citizens on their say-so. Who elected them? Who appointed them?

Nobody.

This is what “Democracy” looks like?

Looks more like a mob trying to justify its actions by pretending to act democratically.

Here’s a video on youtube of their vote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfT3dx7SGm8

These are dictatorial thugs who believe they have the right to impose such things on an entire city of people, most of whom signify their disagreement by their absence. I certainly hope that the authorities there, famously liberal, remember that this crowd of ne’er-do-wells do not speak for the citizenry of Oakland. This is just one more bit of evidence to show you who these people are, and what they believe. When they run around chanting “we are the 99%,” you can know with certainty what they must know too: They’re lying.

According to Joel Pollak, at BigGovernment.com, Barack Obama’s roots as a community organizer lead back to a time when he would have been leading the Occupy movement, and indeed took part in Occupation-style protests against banks. Ladies and gentlemen, we must come to understand not only what is driving the Occupy movement but who is controlling the wheel. Back in 1988, Obama was part of the organizing force behind such protests in Chicago, but now, more than two decades later, he’s the President of the United States, and others are now fulfilling that role. As Pollak reports in a separate article, it is now people like Lisa Fithian who act in the role once played by Barack Obama. It seems that while organizers have changed, the tactics in use are much the same.

This shouldn’t be particularly stunning to the readers of this blog, but what should shock you is the unrelenting dishonesty inherent in the coverage that seems so incomplete among the so-called mainstream media. There is a tendency to cover all of this up, and as Breitbart reported earlier in the week, there are elements within the Occupy movement who are simultaneously covering the event(s) while helping to organize them, putting a whole new meaning to the term “embedded journalists.”

2) Scour all the footage and photos you can find of the instigators of the violence at the protest.

3) Crowd-source the images and ask for help identifying them.

4) Write a post about it on a blog with info on the person(s) and their background.

5) Contact the media and point out who that protest was started by.

Of course, this is an after-the-fact strategy, and says nothing of their role in any violence, and in fact attempts to disclaim it. Any such mob action is going to have dire consequences, and these organizers know it. Are there provocateurs? Almost certainly. The problem is that the provocateurs merely represent another faction of the operation at large.

Honestly, I think those who have unwittingly been sucked into going along with this movement on the basis of an anti-crony-capitalism stance should reconsider. They’re being used by radical and dangerous elements that do not intend any sort of reform, but instead are attempting to foment actual revolution. I’ve said it before, and I will say it again: It’s time for the rank-and-file Occupy Wall Street folks to realize they’re being used, but worse, they’re being set up. When this gets ugly, and it’s growing increasingly unstable daily, they’re likely to find themselves hung out to dry.

It seems that at least some of those who are Squatters Occupying Wall Street(That’s SOWS) are intent upon provoking fights, and utilizing violence. As USAToday is now reporting, there are elements within the greater body of protesters in Zuccotti Park who have made some parts of the park so dangerous that some among their own number won’t venture there. That’s a stunning development, and it may indicate that either the protest is breaking down and losing momentum, or that there are now more dangerous elements operating with the specific intention of causing violence, or exploiting the environment for criminal activities. Earlier today, FDNY removed generators and lantern fuel, along with other items that might pose a public hazard. It may be that the cold air is magnifying the poor conditions, and contributing to the divisions among the sub-groups. There are certainly those with a vested interest in creating the outbreak of violence, and they have every intention of provoking it.

In related news, Glenn Beck has made an episode of his GBTV available for free on his website, exposing the truth about the squatters On Wall Street. You might want to check it out, as it runs two hours in its full length. The Arizone Counter-Terrorism Information Center has posted a bulletin because they discovered posters at Occupy Phoenix telling protesters to kill anybody who violates their rights, and it’s titled: “When should you shoot a cop?” This makes it clear that these people are not all peace-loving protesters as they have claimed and advertised. Instead, as I suggested earlier, there is an element trying to agitate and provoke violent confrontations between protesters and police. As The Blaze has discovered, the author seems to be a leftist named Larken Rose. He’s another agitator intent on creating violence as the pretense for greater mob actions.

This is turning into a three-ring circus, with clearly divided segments of the Occupy crowd seeking distinct ends. There are the hard-core leftists who are organizing the movement, funded by Soros and his various henchmen and sub-groups; there are the mass of useful idiot leftists who are the borderline anarchists spoiling for a fight; there are the other Americans of a more libertarian sort who have permitted themselves to be pulled in on the side of the worst elements. One might feel some sympathy for the last group, but the truth is that we must realize that this is the goal of the organizers, and it is this group who will bear the brunt of the worst violence that will erupt. The military is being actively infiltrated by gang elements, but now also by leftists. The idea is simple: If they can capture control of the military, they have their army for violence against the civilian population, including civil authorities like the police.

Lastly, it’s fitting that I’ve decided to label these protesters as SOWS, because the behavior they’ve been engaging in at Occupy Madison certainly is that of pigs. Apparently, they’ve at least temporarily been denied an extension due to public masturbation. Yes, that’s right: Public masturbation. Hotel guests from across the street complained of this behavior in full view of the public. We knew these people were uncivilized, but this is pathetic. Nobody will be permitted to complain if the SOWS are hereafter called “jag-offs.”

Ladies and gentlemen, we should acknowledge that these people are doing things the Tea Party never did, and that they have seditious goals and objectives that most Americans cannot and should not endorse. In short, they represent a fringe element intent on overthrowing our Constitution. These SOWS must be opposed, and their benefactors and leaders must be exposed.

This professional idiot from Chicago is serious. Meanwhile, I get comments from his fellow idiots who say the Occupy movement isn’t anti-capitalist. Yes, sure. We believe that. Do these squatters think we’re not paying any attention to what they’re doing and saying? Do they think we are as clueless as they pretend to be about who is funding all of this? Please. Don’t insult my intelligence. These are radical Marxists, and if you find a few poor dolts among them who aren’t, they have no clue to what they’ve attached their support. This guy with his laundry list of social program demands is just a communist agitator. Yet we’re told they’re not anti-capitalist? Let’s be honest about it: These people want America to end as you had known it, or as your grandparents had known it. They do not speak for me. All of them should read this: The Morality of Money

I am tired of the notion that these people speak for the 99% of us who are not billionaires. I’ve grown frustrated listening to their complaints, offered with feeble-minded attacks on wealth, money, and the general notion of capitalism. There’s a problem with those who lead these Occupy efforts: They don’t give a damn about this country, its people, or any of the things about which they pretend to care. Instead, what interests them is cultural rape. They intend to change this country without your consent, in its laws, in its culture, and in its economics. The leaders of the OWS movement are simply predators, and while they claim that violence is against their principles, they incite it, they provoke it, and they use the poor misguided folk who are following them to act as their buffer. BusinessInsider published an interesting piece on the larger aims of the Occupy movement, and I’m afraid the American people have no idea about how thoroughly these people have developed their designs on America. They’re going to attempt to re-write your Constitution, while you sleep, and as you watch the latest news on the silly stories of the day.

They imagine themselves as a modern-day version of the framers of our current Constitution, laboring in secret to present us with a new Constitution, in order to save us from ourselves. Let me state emphatically that if they manage to carry off this coup d’etats, I will oppose them, and violently, if need be. Let me throw down a marker now, so that all may know my position: If the Occupiers, their leaders and benefactors succeed in trying to foist on the great mass of the American people some foreign system of government, which it now seems is their clear intent, I will be among the counter-revolutionaries who they will be forced to kill. Write it down. Bookmark it. I will not surrender to these people, because in the main, they do not have my consent, and they do not speak for me. Ninety-nine percent? My ass!

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like for you to consider what the Occupy movement really has in mind. This isn’t about the typical complaints, and it isn’t merely about some bankers, some tax rate, or some scheme for redistributing your wealth. It’s much more insidious than that, and you need to know that when the poor schmucks who follow the lead of this manufactured movement wind up looking stupid on television, it’s not because the movement has no firm goals, as we all first thought, but because the rank-and-file Occu-Pest doesn’t know what those goals actually are. In order to understand what it is that they’re going to attempt, you must first understand some history, and I’d beg of my readers to educate themselves with a sense of urgency. The leadership of this movement is trying to create a bit of theater, in mimicry of a historical event, and you must understand its importance if you’re to have any hope of confronting them. You in the Tea Party had better pay close attention, because many of you will already know this history, but I am going to show you how they intend to use the weight of history against you and your beloved Constitution. If you wish to know how they are going to attack you, you must know that the past is prologue. You must know that none of this is really new, but the manner in which it will be done is novel. Finally, I think we can begin to see what they intend, and for once, I think you ought to know it so that you can do something constructive in opposition.

First, I would like you to acquaint yourselves with the Committees of Correspondence. These were shadow governments that our founders formed in order to confront the British empire. These committees were used to oppose the British and essentially superseded the colonial legislatures. This was the method by which we eventually arrived at the pre-revolutionary state that would lead to the Declaration of Independence and our ultimate separation from the British. It is important to understand that those who are leading the Occupy movement are attempting to carry out something similar, although their desired ends are much different. They intend to use a seemingly democratic movement to undermine freedom via the state, and they intend a quiet take-over. Many have referenced their intentions, but it’s clear that most don’t quite understand.

The first thing necessary to their movement is the claim to legitimacy. This is the meaning of all of this “99%” garbage they’re throwing around. The truth is, they don’t speak for one percent of one percent of one percent of Americans. Nevertheless, this will be their claim, and they will try to establish the providence of that claim through the use of media. As we’ve seen, many in the media are in bed with the Occupy movement, and in at least one case Breitbart has uncovered, they are the media. Don’tbe surprised when you find that they are now going to claim to be of you, by you, and for you, the American people. Last week, I reported to you their plan for a national assembly, and now here’s their plan for creating this illusion:

1. The Occupy Wall Street movement, through the local general assembly, should elect an executive committee comprised of 11 people or some other odd number of people that is manageable for meetings. Ideally this committee should represent each city in the U.S. that is being occupied.

2. The executive committee will then attend to local issues such as obtaining permits, paying for public sanitation and dealing with the media. More important, the executive committee shall plan and organize the election of the 870 delegates to a National General Assembly between now and July 4, 2012.

3. As stated in the 99% declaration, each of the 435 congressional districts will form an election committee to prepare ballots and invite citizens in those districts to run as delegates to a National General Assembly in Philadelphia beginning on July 4, 2012 and convening until October 2012.

4. Each of the 435 congressional districts will elect one man and one woman to attend the National General Assembly. The vote will be by direct democratic ballot regardless of voter registration status as long as the voter has reached the age of 18 and is a US citizen. This is not a sexist provision. Women are dramatically under-represented in politics even though they comprise more than 50% of the U.S. population.

5. The executive committee will act as a central point to solve problems, raise money to pay for the expenses of the election of the National General Assembly and make sure all 870 delegates are elected prior to the meeting on July 4th.

6. The executive committee would also arrange a venue in Philadelphia to accommodate the delegates attending the National General Assembly where the declaration of values, petition of grievances and platform would be proposed, debated, voted on and approved. The delegates would also elect a chair from their own ranks to run the meetings of the congress and break any tie votes. We will also need the expertise of a gifted parliamentarian to keep the meetings moving smoothly and efficiently.

7. The final declaration, platform and petition of grievances, after being voted upon by the 870 delegates to the National General Assembly would be formally presented by the 870 delegates to all three branches of government and all candidates running for federal public office in November 2012. Thus, the delegates would meet from July 4, 2012 to sometime in early to late October 2012.

8. The delegates to the National General Assembly would then vote on a time period, presently suggested as one year, to give the newly elected government in November an opportunity to redress the petition of grievances. This is our right as a People under the First Amendment.

9. If the government fails to redress the petition of grievances and drastically change the path this country is on, the delegates will demand the resignation and recall of all members of congress, the president and even the Supreme Court and call for new elections by, of and for the PEOPLE with 99 days of the resignation demand.

10. There will NEVER be any call for violence by the delegates even if the government refuses to redress the grievances and new elections are called for by the delegates. Nor will any delegate agree to take any money, job promise, or gifts from corporations, unions or any other private source. Any money donated or raised by the executive committee may only be used for publicizing the vote, the National General Assembly, and for travel expenses and accommodation at the National General Assembly ONLY. All books and records will be published openly online so that everyone may see how much money is raised and how the money is spent each month. There will be no money allowed to “purchase” delegate votes as we have in the current government. No corporate “sponsorship”.

This is a continuing attempt to make all of this look organic, but more importantly, to legitimize it and to pretend that they speak with authority for the ninety-nine percent they claim to comprise. In effect, they are trying to create the appearance of an analog to the 1770s and the Committees of Correspondence. Of course, the next part of their plan is even more insidious, and it is to replace the US Constitution by methods not unlike those employed to replace the Articles of Confederation, except that they will have nothing like the support among the American people that supported revising our Articles of Confederation. Back when it was first suggested that our first form of government (Articles of Confederation) be revised, that’s what the delegates had been tasked to do. Instead, they crafted an entirely new constitution and presented it for ratification. In some contexts, this might have been considered a treason, except that any such claims have been made moot by the subsequent ratification and adoption of our Constitution. Most Americans forget that George Washington was our first president under this current constitution, but that he was not the first President of the United States. Under the Articles of Confederation, that was the presiding member of Congress, who happened to have been Samuel Huntington (March 1, 1781 – July 9, 1781.) Most people don’t know this because they aren’t taught it, along with so much else in our precious history.

Once you realize what Soros and the others who are driving this intend, it becomes obvious what their methodology will be: They intend to speak on your behalf, and to trump up a movement to convince those in government that they are speaking on your behalf. There’s only one way to prevent this, and you should fight against it with full resolve. Confront them by telling your representatives in Washington DC that the Occu-pests don’t speak for you. Confront them by telling the media, loudly and often, that the Occupiers don’t speak for us. They’re trying to capture the legitimacy born of their 99% claim, but you and I know they don’t speak for anything like the 99% they claim. It simply doesn’t exist. There is no overwhelming desire on the part of the American people to replace or radically amend the United States Constitution. I will consider all such radical propositions as they are: Acts of treason. Also, be aware that this other phony movement, Americans Elect, exists to try to change the way we elect Presidents. It’s full of Soros shills too, and as I’ve reported before, I cannot trust anyone or anything related to the aims of that man or the multitude of organizations he funds and backs and manipulates.

This movement is being manipulated for one ultimate purpose: To destroy and replace the US Constitution. There is nothing else but that goal. I consider the people leading these Occupiers as fomenting insurrection, while actively plotting treason. I realize many of the rank-and-file Occupiers don’t understand this, however there will come a point at which they will begin to endanger the Republic, and in their mindless, unthinking support of this Marxist movement, they are assisting to destroy the United States. In the sense specifically, they don’t speak for me. They don’t speak for ninety-nine percent, or anything near that number. They are the loud and vociferous cacophony of ne’er-do-wells who have in largest measure contributed to our current state of presumptive decline.

Ladies and gentlemen, these people and their leadership do not speak for me. They do not speak for anybody I know personally. I don’t know any person who actually supports them. I don’t know a soul who thinks we should ditch our Constitution, never mind by the dictates of some Marxist cabal of Soros flacks. I don’t know one person, anywhere in my extended circle of friends and family who actually believes in anything the Occupiers are espousing. None. Maybe you do, but I’d like to know from my readers: Do they speak for you? Do they? Is George Soros acting on your behalf? Somehow I doubt it, but rather than make any assumptions, as the Occu-Pests have done, I’m not willing to speak for others. If the Occupiers don’t speak for you, you should let your government, and the media, and every person you can find to tell them that fact.

They don’t speak for me, and I’d rather die than submit to the mobocracy they envision.

The Occu-Pests are beginning to realize that while they’ve been camped out in Zuccotti Park, and elsewhere around the country, they’ve merely provided a distraction from other news that has permitted banking to go on as usual. As I reported here over the week-end, the actions of Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, and JP Morgan should have caught the attention of anybody concerned about the continuing threat of a US debt crisis, but everyone is distracted with Gaddafi’s death, and several other over-hyped issues, including the Occu-Pests. The problem is that the Occu-Pests are mostly Marxists, being organized by people friendly to the administration that is actually carrying out the very policies the Occupiers seem to oppose.

What they haven’t figured out, yet, is that they are being used as a distraction. The longer they sit in their tents and march in the various venues around the country, they’re being made into the bad guys because they truly are a nuisance, and some lesser proportion of their number are prone to violent acts and vile behaviors. In short, they’re shooting themselves in the foot. Each day they remain on station, they are decreasing their impact and merely giving cover to bad government policies.

Last Friday, on Rolling Stone, one of these Occu-Pests laments that “Washington still doesn’t get it.” I’ve got news for the poor fool: Washington “Gets it” quite well, but you, on the other hand, do not. Washington understands very well that the longer you occupy Wall Street, the more cover they will have. At the end of his article, Matt Taibbi posits this:

“If anyone thought OWS has already done its job, and Washington has gotten the message already, think again. They’re not going to change until the protesters force them to change, it seems.”

This is maniacally self-aggrandizing, and it’s also delusional. “Force?” Does Matt Taibbi really believe that they can “force them to change?” They number in the hands-full of thousands, but even a mass march of perhaps a million or more Tea Party types was unable to “force them to change.” Or is Mr. Taibbi admitting of a willingness to use actual violence? If he is, he has even less grounding in reality than I had suspected. There is a simple fact that Mr. Taibbi doesn’t understand, but he eventually will, one way or the other: The protesters at OWS are being used. Their numbers are insignificant to anything but a publicity stunt, a photo op, and a distraction. This sort of protest will have no effect against the greater will of the American people. The very people who have helped to create the OWS movement have been using them as cover for their own agenda right along, but the OWS folk have been too naive to realize it. George Soros, who is indirectly behind much of this, must be laughing at the harrumphing going on among the OWS folks about their lack of impact. They’re having exactly the impact they were supposed to have: While they protest, Soros and his pals are looting the future of this country and the OWS people shriek at Wall Street.

It’s sad in one sense while fitting in another that as they protest for notions none of them seem too firmly to grasp, they’re being played by the very people who have organized them there. They still believe they’re an organic protest, but it’s laughable to suggest, and besides, to the degree there is any real grass-roots activism, it is being steered by those who have stage-managed this entire side-show. Now here’s the real problem they face, these poor Occu-pests: The day is quickly approaching when they will have out-lived their usefulness, if it hasn’t happened already, and then the people who helped organize them are going to make examples of them in the name of “maintaining order.” Watch and see what happens. If these poor fools stick around very long, the powers who brought them forth will use agent provocateurs to instigate violence, and it will be made to look like the Pests themselves initiated it. George Soros reportedly met with Police Commissioner Ray Kelly in New York, so it’s possible that the hammer is about to fall on the hapless Occu-Pests. I’m not certain that this isn’t part of what caused the riot Tuesday night at Occupy Oakland. I think the natives are getting restless, and the provocateurs are pushing things. This is how they will create the spectacle in which the Occu-Pests will be sacrificed. It’s sad to think that these poor knuckleheads have been so thoroughly duped by their leadership, but there you have it. There’s a reason they’re known as “useful idiots.”

I was born and raised in the Catholic Church and I understand its teachings, but I cannot accept this outrageous proposition by Pope Benedict for a new Central World Bank. In my view, he can take his statist proposition and burn with it in the lake of fire. This is a sinful proposal, because it arrogantly ignores that which the church teaches about free will. One of the things about which I have long been at odds with the Catholic Church has been its preaching of “social justice” via social policies of governments. This perhaps applies salve to those who feel some guilt in what wealth they have earned, but more frequently, it provides a moral escape hatch for those who produce nothing while demanding that others pay their way.

This is the source of a great rift in the church, greater even than questions over issues of abortion, homosexuality, and pedophilia among priests. This is a matter of what the church teaches its people at a fundamental level, and Pope Benedict’s proposal is one that should cause mortal shame in the Vatican. That institution has been collecting and sitting on vast wealth for nearly the entire period of its existence, and the fact that it wants so-called “social justice” at the point of a gun is the last piece you need to understand how morally bankrupt the Church has become. In the days of John Paul II’s early years, he fought with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher against the tyranny of communism. For me, the Catholic Church is now officially dead, because through this proposal, Pope Benedict XVI is joining the church in Communism.

There are no good works one can accomplish if one practices evil in order to carry them out. This proposition on the part of the Pope is something that must be confronted, and I intend to do so. There is a reason the Church has lost credibility, and when you see that they have extended into the world of politics and governance to the extent this proposal portends, you can know that the institution of the Church is in serious trouble. So desperate is the Church to fill its coffers from the world’s poor that it now relies upon a proposal to enslave them. In this instance, the Vatican is actually demanding global taxes on financial transactions. WHAT?

If you think it is bad when government involves itself in the realm of religion, imagine what it is when religion takes over governance on a claim of moral authority over people and nations who may not subscribe to its claim of authority. Every protestant who ever had doubts about the Catholic church have just had them confirmed in this proposal. Of all the abominable hypocrisies put forward in this proposal, here, I think is the most stunning of all:

“In fact, the crisis has revealed behaviours like selfishness, collective greed and hoarding of goods on a great scale,”(emphasis added)

Here you have the ultimate in hypocrisy: An institution that has hoarded the wealth of ages while continuing to collect wealth from even the poorest of its flock actually bothers to address the question of “collective greed?” What can be more greedy than a Church hierarchy that occupies a palace in a nation established for its own propagation and preservation? What? What is greater greed than this? Pope Benedict should be ashamed to attach his name to any of this, and indeed, Catholics should recoil in horror. Here is the ugly reality of the nature of these actions by the Church: It is now collaborating with the devils of socialism and communism.

The most disturbing part of this proposal by the Vatican was the appeal for a “Global Authority.” Yes, the Vatican just asked for a one-world government to oversee currency, banking, and apparently, taxation. I will never submit to this, and I hereby denounce the Vatican, this Pope, and all the hypocrisies for which they have chosen to stand. The church and the Pope are supposed to be spiritual leaders, but this is direct involvement in the lives of all men through government’s tentacles, and it’s an astonishing rejection of the pursuit of liberty Pope John Paul II had undertaken in the 1980s. My complaint here is not with Catholics, but with the institution that claims to lead them. This proposal is not born of the teachings of Jesus Christ, but of foolish old men in the Vatican who have forgotten what it is they are to do, and have become too comfortable in their museum-like surroundings. The Vatican is no longer the seat of the greatest Christian church on the planet, but a jewel-encrusted mausoleum that has entombed its principles beneath a stone lid of politics and corruption. Once, the Catholic Church stood against tyranny, but as we now see all too clearly, the Vatican has gotten in bed with it.

The New York Post is reporting that all is not happy at Occu-Pest Central down at Zuccotti Park, in New York. It seems the Occupy Finance Committee (don’t you love their use of “committee” just like full-fledged communists) has a war-chest of some $500K and Occu-Pests want some of that wealth spread around to compensate them for losses of equipment, particularly drums, due to vandalism. Every protest movement needs a finance scandal, and now the Occu-Pests have one, complete with angry drummers. It was only a matter of time, but the stunning part is how naive these people really are about the ways of the world and the facts of the ideology they claim to hold as their ideal.

One angry Occu-Pest told the New York Post:

“F–k Finance. I hope Mayor Bloomberg gets an injunction and demands to see the movement’s books. We need to know how much money we really have and where it’s going,” said a frustrated Bryan Smith, 45, who joined OWS in Lower Manhattan nearly three weeks ago from Los Angeles, where he works in TV production.

Of all the complaints cited in the New York Post article, none provided me more entertainment than this:

“The other day, I took in $2,000. I kept $650 for my group, and gave the rest to Finance. Then I went to them with a request — so many people need things, and they should not be going without basic comfort items — and I was told to fill out paperwork. Paperwork! Are they the government now?” Smith fumed, even as he cajoled the passing crowd for more cash.

This sad spectacle of a Marxist demanding money, and then angry about bureaucracy is absolutely revelatory of how disconnected these people are from history and reality. Note to Mr. Bryan Smith:

You are agitating for a change in form of government and an elimination of the private sector, and you want less bureaucracy? Who do you think is going to be running your life if you have your way? My bet is that you won’t be beating a drum for a living at a protest rally. Really, grow up and face the reality: That demand for paperwork is what you’re ultimately demanding from the universe at large in this entire enterprise. Don’t be unhappy now that you’re getting your first taste of it. Wait until your Finance Committee is answering to a Central Committee that in turn answers to some sort of Politburo. That’s where your wishes are taking you, pal. Don’t shrink in revulsion from the sight of the monster you’ve helped to create. Revel in it. This is the future, the hope, and the change for which you’ve been protesting.

To win, they needed to take down America, and they’re well on their way, and at the top of it all, Barack Obama stands with George Soros’ hand up his backside. In what could only be considered a more modern iteration of the book None Dare Call it Treason, this country is being wiped out, and I think it’s time we say so.

What has been the purpose of all of this coordination between the leftists groups from America participating in the Gaza Flotilla, or in the Tahrir Square revolution? What could be the meaning of poking Israel in the eye with the entire September threat of a move by Palestineans for Statehood? I realize that even three years ago, this kind of talk would have gotten somebody branded a conspiracist, but let’s be honest shall we? I believe coincidences exist, and that correlation isn’t necessarily causation, but this is frankly too much to accept on that basis. We have all known for a long time, those who paid any attention, that America was the last best hope for freedom anywhere on Earth. We are now watching it wrecked. It’s not accidental. There’s a reason the Dodd-Frank financial reform act permits certain facts to be kept secret from the American people.

Ordinary people like me are now turning to me and asking “what shall we do?” As one of my loyal readers comments, it’s like from the movie 300: “What can we do?” I have heard a fair number of oaths muttered under the breath of those who have their own solemn answer to the question, but I suppose I have always wondered at what point the American people simply say: “Enough!” What recourse remains? Your President and his party have spit on this country fearlessly for three years. They’re supporting our enemies both at home and abroad. Will you call Congress and demand he be impeached? What will that accomplish? Would the Senate act? Even if it did, what then? Biden? Do you think that useful idiot would do any better or different?

No, I think you’d better prepare to live as slaves. Your masters will be the Occu-Pests, and your children will struggle the length of their stunted lives in support of them and their Marxist agenda. This way, you risk nothing. Let me be brutally honest with you: Some of you haven’t had the intestinal fortitude to face up to friends and family and congregation and neighbor and even state what it is that is transpiring, for fear of ridicule. I know, because I get the e-mails. I have writers telling me: “I don’t even bother with the kids, they are so busy living their lives and watching garbage on TV that they think Jon Stewart is news.” I have grown people who should be the object of respect and reverence in their communities telling me: “Well, you can’t say that in public because somebody will think you’re nuts.” What courage will we have when it comes down to it if now, when we could speak, we instead cower and say nothing?

On the other side of this, I get e-mails from people who tell me how somebody who loved them re-directed them in their thinking as a result of long, heartfelt and frank discussions about what we now face. One young lady wrote to tell me:

“My dad was always pestering me to follow the news. I have a five-month-old baby and a toddler, and I just don’t have the time. My husband works two jobs, and right now, daycare costs more than any job I could get, so I just stay home with my kids. He sent me a link to your story about “Downgraded America” and I read it. I was really bothered by it, but I didn’t know what to think. My dad, you know, he’s always sending me this scary political stuff. Then I went back and read some of your other stories. I talked with my husband about one because he’s interested in some of this stuff, but he doesn’t have time. He looked at me and said “Yea, that’s what’s happening.” The look on his face was like he was letting me in on a secret that I should have known. I am going to learn more about this, and I’m going to talk with some of my friends. None of them are very political. Neither was I, but I have my babies to think about, and I can’t afford not to know what’s going on….”

Ladies and gentlemen, if we’re to stand any chance at all, we can’t have any more secrets, and we can’t fear to state what is. It’s Sunday. It’s a day to repair for the week ahead. It’s a moment of pause before we re-enter the storm. Use it to good purpose. Prepare the ones you love.